Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Olrox17" data-source="post: 8007856" data-attributes="member: 6801397">I recently had a long and interesting discussion with my gaming group, about how powerful the basic chassis of 5e classes are, and, as a result, how powerful (and interesting) are 5e subclasses allowed to be. We all agreed on a conclusion, which I'd like to share here, and I'd like to get Enworld's opinion.5e classes, with the PHB Ranger being a possible exception, are strong. Their core features are solid and effective. If you played a 5e character, and you deliberately omitted to pick a subclass just to gimp yourself, you'd still have a competent character on your hands.Let's take the fighter as a straightforward example. Over 20 levels, the fighter gets a fighting style, second wind, 2 action surges, 2 extra ASIs, Indomitable, and up to 4 attacks per action. Pretty powerful stuff.What does, say, an eldritch knight get on top of that? A small choice of wizard spells up to level 4, and a handful of features that are either ribbons or of limited use. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that EK is weak, I actually believe it's a powerful subclass! However, it's built on the solid fighter chassis, which limits its design space.The devs could not make the EK more interesting and powerful then it already is, because they had to take all of the base fighter features into account, and balance the subclass according to them.People that have experienced 4e probably know about the Swordmage, a full "arcane fighter" class, and how successful and loved that class was. It was a unique blend of martial and arcane abilities, doing completely different things from both fighters, and wizards. It was its own thing, and it was, IMO, far, far more interesting than the EK could ever dream to be. Why? Because, being its own class, the devs had full design control over what a Swordmage could do.On the other hand, everyone who ever designed a 5e subclass has to deal with the base class' features and baggage.So what happens when the devs make a strong, interesting subclass, regardless of the base class features? You get stuff like the Moon Druid, widely considered overpowered, and rightly so. A moon druid is arguably OP just by virtue of its subclass features only, and then it gets full spellcasting, up to ninth level, on top of that. Not great design.The Ranger is a fascinating example of the opposite. The ranger's base class features are subpar, the player base and WotC agree on this. So how did WotC tackle that? They tried a few class redesigns that didn't quite pan out in testing, and then they released the Xanathar subclasses. Those subclasses were stronger than average, and actually kind of fun to play! Wotc realized that, with the Ranger chassis being subpar, their only current option was to fill that design gap with solid, fun, flavorful, stronger than average subclasses. Not a bad idea! Yes, it's technically power creep, so it isn't an ideal solution, but it's something.Let's go back to the fighter example, and, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that the fighter DID NOT get extra attack by default at 11th and 20th level. Instead, the fighter would get subclass features at those levels. Now obviously, you could have any number of fighter subclasses that would in fact get, at those levels, extra attacks, resulting in the same exact fighter we have now. The Champion subclass, for instance, would be a prime candidate for that.Yet, by removing those extra attacks from the basic progression, we just opened an IMMENSE design space for any fighter subclass that might elect NOT to get a third and fourth attack.An Eldritch Knight could get some truly wondrous and creative gish things to do, in place of those plain (but very powerful) attacks. And what about the Battlemaster? I can picture it: a high level battlemaster that can use its low level maneuvers at will (2012 playtest fighter, do you remember that?), and also getting access to high level, more powerful and impressive maneuvers, that actually require dice expenditure. Yes, kinda like Tome of Battle.A massive design space, a deep well of potential, suddenly opens up, just because we removed a few powerful features from a class default progression.And what of the druid, and the struggle to make a powerful, unique shapeshifting subclass built upon a full spellcaster without making it OP? Well, what if the druid was an half caster, by default? Then you could have a truly spectacular wild shape subclass, and it wouldn't be too powerful because, well, spell slots only up to level 5, man.More traditional, casting focused, druid subclasses would still get their full casting progression from their subclass features, rather than their base class chassis.TL;DR:So, here's the thing. I know 5e is not going to redesign its basic components and mechanics. A 5.5 edition, however, might happen in the future, who knows. And if it happens, I strongly think that WotC should go with a less is more approach to base class features, and allow subclasses to do much more of the heavy lifting. I really think such a design direction would benefit the game.Feel free to rip my argument to shreds, or to agree, I look forward to your opinions.</blockquote>

Verification